Copyright is moot because it was designed to protect the big corporations. Maker John Doe can't afford to depend on copyright, and it is most cost-effective to generally pretend it a) isn't there for you and b) if it's there, it is against you. If you want to make a living out of 3D printing just set up a Patreon or something. There's many people making a living out of "free work" that gets donated to in exchange for a perk or two. Either that or accept that someone, somewhere, is going to leech off but suing isn't even worth it. My wife is in a similar boat - she draws for a living and sometimes people put her drawings (unauthorized) on e.g. shirts for sale. Suing would be a lot of work and is not a rewarding endeavor, not to mention it is downtime from actual work and a total drag.
A much needed video for the community - it would be cool if you could go through issues like printing or requesting copyrighted works through places like 3D Hubs, which seems to cause a lot of arguments in online forums. I hadn't realized just how little copyright you had on functional designs - very interesting.
Great video Tom. It surprises me there isn't more suites drawn in this area, and perhaps it's because it's not a large enough problem, but I have a feeling we are setting the stage for a crack down.
Tom, this question I have been meaning to ask you for a long time but all of those spools of plastic behind you in the videos don't they soak up moisture? What is the RH near them?
One interesting detail about patents being public is that makers or even companies can use the patented designs when creating their own machines. The in-house built machines can even be used to create commercial products (e.g. 3D prints) as long as the machines them selves are not made commercially available.
Nice video! One thing I found interesting (Assuming I understand it correctly) is that anything published under a creative commons license is either free for everyone to reproduce commercially such as CC BY/BY SA, or restricted so nobody (including the author) can reproduce commercially.
That was an extremely educational video. The Heated Build Chamber is one that I have been researching quite a bit, as well as Arcam's Electron Beam Melting to try to reverse engineer it...as an educational project, of course. You are very well spoken, your research is thorough. When people ask me what I do as an Engineering Student, they must have an image of a "geek" in a lab coat somewhere, when they find out the majority of the time is spent reading or researching it is always a surprise. Tom, you seem like the type of student that wanted more out of school and prefer to self-educate yourself. Am I wrong? What area of engineering did you study? I want to work with you or for you. You enjoy what you do, as a direct result, I believe the value of your videos (on the topics you've covered so far) is unparalleled. How should someone get in touch with you to send you products to test?
Ryan of MPCNC fame should watch this video. He would learn that except for his trademarks and logos, his design has absolutely no protection, and anyone who wants to can legally sell parts for it, design new parts for it, or change his design.
Here's the catch-22 about Trademarks: Brands want their brand name to be widely-known. However, if a brand name becomes so widely-known that the public comes to identify an entire class of products by that name, it has become "diluted," and loses trademark status. "Aspirin" used to be Bayer's trademarked brand name for their specific product. Now, it is a generic term for any brand of acetylsalicylic acid pain reliever. This is why companies such as Xerox and Lego have PR campaigns to remind the public that those words refer to specific brands, not generic classes of products. See also: TVTropes article "Stuck on Band-Aid Brand."
For those who want to abolish patents and stuff: The big idea behind patents are, that they open the idea to everyone to improve the topic to an advanced state while the original patent holder is able to earn money and build up or run his company. If you are a private person you can always use the patents idea, but not as a competitor. The other option always was and still is to keep your knowledge secret. The world will be limited in its developing and educational speed then. Another topic is "Geschmacksmuster" to prevent anyone other as Porsche (as example) to build automobiles which look like porsche cars.
Patent law failure is that two people could come up with the same idea simultaneously and only the one who can (or wants to) "protect" it with a patent ends up with the rights to use it. I always think back to the lunchables patent on crustless PB&J. Not an innovative idea by a long shot... lots of people cut their crust and crimping the edges... that too. Yet they got a patent on the idea. Overly long medical patents kill people because of monopolistic pricing. I wish creative people and inventors could just be paid to create and invent and share, and not worry about becoming wealthy.
So basically I can print whatever i want so long as I dont: Claim its mine Sell it commercially without permission Post about it online without permission Or re-distribute the file without permission Becuse obviosly people put them on 3d print sites SO YOU CAN print them, so as long as it's nothing more, your fine.
Really informative! Thanks for the video, really clears up a lot of the fog around copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. I look forward to your next videos!
One thing you didn't talk about was 3D scanning. If you scan an object like the Coca Cola bottle, whose shape is trademarked, and then distribute the file or prints made from the file, you are infringing on Coca Cola's trademark.
This is a great video. As a content creator/artist I really don't like seeing derivatives of my work. I have seen Things that have had one tiny little modification and then published as original work. After seeing a lot of that I decided to explore much of what you have mentioned in your video. I think If you plan on modifying someone else's work its appropriate to contact the original creator and give him/her the content to augment his work, otherwise keep it for yourself and don't publish it.
Tom! Excellent as always. Question unrelated to the topic. What is the color and manufacturer of that light green spool behind you in this video (just under your elbow)? My wife loves that color so I want to get a spool to print things for her.
I am building a 3D printer and thinking of selling it, glad I remembered this video to help orientate myself. I am still uncertain if or how I should go open source with my 3D designs and assembly files.
Excellent video! The Blender 3D store is an interesting creative commons example because it's all creative commons stuff they sell digitally so you don't technically have to buy anything from there and can instead download the files for free from them instead (although it's cool to support them)
I’ve given away Creative Commons for photographs. It was for a wildlife sanctuary, and as they are a not for profit I wanted them to be able to generate revenue using my work.
great video. Congrats Tom. I have a question about CC. I have some CC content in Thingiverse/MMF and i don't want people earn money selling my designs (the STL files) but i have no issue with people who sells printed figures with my designs (anyone with a 3dhub by example). ¿It's the CC - Non Comercial the license i should use? And another tricky question: if i have a generative algorithm, the STL's generated are protected with the same license that the algorithm? Thanks
This is a really important subject! Thank you for talking about it, after all much of the things that are printed are downloaded and copied from the internet. And that's a bad thing in the eye some "important people". And i just read that you are coming ti Sweden Thomas! Looking forward to talking to you!
Hey Thomas, if you can check your last video! (The version of this one that you uploaded earlier) I left you some questions I was hoping you may be able to clear up in a future video "What truly is Open Source" Or something along those lines. Let me know if you can't view the previous comments as I'll post it again!
Thomas Sanladerer looking back, it was more of a conversation between me and another community member, I'm trying to see if there's a way to share a link to that conversation as Google doesn't let me copy paste!
I have a toy design that I created and had 3d modeled, printed it as a prototype. It is a toy with no function, and is only aesthetic. If I were to have these mass produced and sold, would it be a copyright or a patent? It is an original work of art, but would making copies to sell as a toy make it need a patent?
Hey I have a really important question. Now I wanted to 3d print to sell items. items such as day to day items like, certain kitchen tools, cell phone cases, drones, certain toys, and accessories like go pro holders. we won't display any trademark names of any product. since I know I can not simply take a persons 3d print file and start commercially selling it. Now, what if I had someone else look at the designers work. be able to build on it and improve it and possibly change some of the layout of the design of the product, colors and some materials will also be different also. would that still be infringing any copyright?
Hey Tom I have the prusa i3 mk2 and I was wondering why layers where the plastic bind together to look smooth like the first layer and last layer...some lines peel or curl up and making that top or bottom layer rough. Is there a way I can fix this? Thanks. If you can do a video about this that would be great.
So I have made a conveyor belt system to automatically remove prints for one of my printers. Because this is patented by Makerbot am I not allowed to share my CAD files even though they are all my own original work and design?
If I download someone else's file as a starting reference, how much do I need to alter it before it's mine. I.e. a file for a helmet that I added horns and an opening face shield to?
Left shark was removed from Shapeways.com/shop/amznfx but not from thingiverse.. also it was returned to Shapeways after Katy perry didn't prove she owned copyright
I have a question then, what about the Chevy emblems and Ford emblems on thingiverse, those are trademarked and licensed for use only by the respective company but you see them all the time on items that aren't licensed. Another big one is the guy who created the 3d printed LS Camaro engine and put it on thingiverse. He used copyrighted and patented drawings to create it and is reselling the 3d prints, legally he'd be infringing on TM, Copyright and Patents.
Probably has to do with how those things are presented. If an object presents the company logo in a tasteful way, and doesn't compete with an existing product it's more likely they'll let it slide. Also people aren't likely to buy a Ford or Chevy keychain doodad, unless they have a Ford or Chevy. So in a way it's also like free advertising for that promotes another already existing product. Not that they can't go after it, but it's just not worth the bother or counter-productive in terms of PR.
The companies care trust me, I've seen cease and desist letters from lawyers. They don't know about it and until they do it will continue. It's like the saying, "I'm not breaking the law if I don't get caught".
There is a bottom-line question in any copyright, licensing or patent issue: If you copy something for your own jollies, life is good, you owe nobody anything. Private use clause is well established; you can have all the advanced technology 'they' are keeping from everyone, you just can't share it with anyone! If y'all make a copy for someone else, sell a copy, claim it as your own work, fail to credit Author for derivative works, then there are legal issues. The only people who argue passionately for the abolition of private property are poor folks crying for a hand-out. "You have some, I got none! Crime!" is not the grown-up way of living in this world.
Interested to hear how your opinion has changed on the clone printers, perhaps when you do the Anet A8 video. I've got one in the mail and I've heard you have one coming too.
So if somebody ask me for print something from Thingiverse, can I (as a company) print that and sell the print as a "Printing Order" regardless for 'What I'm printed out'?
Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0 [ERROR] Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0 Can you helpme please? I know this is not the place, but i couldn't find it anywhere else.
I am making a 3D model of an art scene that i want to sell on line... Do i or should i copyright this image model.. If so, what would i need to do in order to copyright the model image... is it neccessary ?
The exact requirements are very different between countries, so if you see copyright infringement being a potential significant loss for you, I'd recommend talking to an actual lawyer.
Heres a question: What If you download a model that isn't copywritten and use it commercially, but the model was a reupload of another model that was. If the original maker goes to take legal action, who would they go after?
They would go after everyone involved and get as much money as they can, and if you are making money off of it - you might have to pay the most, because you happen to have the most.
Why does Reprap project start right after the patent on 3D printers expired? Stasys can sue anyone that make the machine for their own use as well? Or it because we can't publish the info about DIY 3D printers? Or maybe just because thing like filament are hard to get hand on before the patent is gone?
Stratsys would not sue you if you made a copy of one of their printers, because the legal reward is based on lost revenue. If you are never going to sell a million of them or be the cause of someone else taking your work and selling a million of them, there's no lost revenue.
If I buy a STL file of a movie character, is the file creator breaking any laws by creating that file? Do they have the right to limit how I use the file?
I have guestion, if I ask to do so, can I give a non comercial print away to like a 50th customer. Mainly to market my printing? Asking because I am willing to ask the creator and know that It would increase what I can sell.
I'll sum it up for you in one sentence instead of a 15 minute video: 'If you don't sell or distribute anything, you can do whatever the fuck you want."
There's so much more information in the video that such an explanation is trite at best. Also, it's false for many jurisdictions, as many people find when they get sued for just downloading movies and music, without redistributing it or money changing hands. Are you likely to be sued for 3D printing model files? Probably not, but assuming you can do whatever you want might run people into trouble.
reposting a copyrighted image is the same as distributing it. But really it is more about if you never share the thing you made. You are not harming the owner/company. Which is the point of copy rights. If you redistribute a image/movie online/offline you are taking income from the creators. If you redistribute an image from a news channel you are taking away views from the owners which loses ad income... If you keep what you made/modified to yourself you are not in anyway effecting the owner of the content. If you sell something you are obviously taking money away from the creator. Even if you are taking a work from someone who is giving it away for free when you redistribute the work you are claiming it as your own(putting the original author name is required not just stating it is not your work).
Remember what the software, and music, industry says about that copy you "bought"? They say, so do their attorneys who come after you, that you are only leasing the right to use it for a one time payment but they retain all right beyond you installing one time or playing it on your machine. They have won on cases about this and while that makes me sick even if I thought I could win you, nor I, would have the money to fight them so you obey Goliath. So, you take your copy of your CD, DVD, or whatever and go install it on a friend's PC to play or listen to (in case of a music CD) on a device you do not own you are not distributing it but you are in violation nonetheless. Digital files are the exact same.
You purchase and own the physical media (tape/CD/DVD/Blu-Ray/pages/canvas/etc.) on which the work resides, as well as a license to personal use of the work contained therein. "Installing" music, video, or software from the physical media you purchased is making a new copy, hence, distribution, if even on a very small scale.
If you think you are developing something that is worth a patent application keep a development diary with time and date with details. In the event of disputes it proves the development process. BUT if some large company wants what you have, money wins every time. That's the way of the world.
hello i have a bit of autisum and dont understand everything, can someone help me on this? So lets say someone makes a dsign for feeding snails, i take this disigne off a website, download it and change it. then sell it on my website. is that ok? if i dont ever admit i copyed? i mean, who knows i copyed it?
copyright, trademarks, and patents, are only enforceable if you have the money to do so. For example you make an item, put it on thingiverse and have it copyrighted. Someone else prints and sells it you get mad. But do you have the money to go after the person? Because if you don't good luck. If its something you want to stay yours DO NOT SHARE IT. Because there are many people in this world capable of taking advantage of the system and get away with it.
Patents also do not have this magical 10% rule either. A design/function that is patented give protection and forcible claim on those that infringe it. A contest of a patent in defense requires the patent owner to prove that their patent does not infringe even after it is awarded. Patent searches are made at the time of applying for a patent and many months pass during this phase. At the review, you will be presented many potential conflicts with other patents where word or function searches show similarities. At this time you have to write a statement and show cause why your invention or process is different and this is where people think the 10% rule applies.... IT DOES NOT. The Patent office is responsible for ensuring that reasonable effort is made to the uniqueness of a design. This is often measured against the intent of use of the product. Where similar processes can be applied to be used for different functions. For example... you can't patent ohm's law or resistors or LEDs (unless you've made a new type of LED) or generic processes. This means that for the most part of your patent application, it will be rejected, and only the unique parts are captured in the approved patent. So what happens with your patent? Thousands of people with patents for LED lighting applications, and the only bit they can enforce, is how they use it or what it means in it's use. Patents can be used offensively, but represent SIGNIFICANT cost! A defendant with a patent must also have to pay to prove they are unique too, at cost! Sometimes a Patent offensive strike is not to stop someone using their own patent. But a financial tactical attack to bleed the small scale operator dry of cash before they can implement and make money from their own patented invention. It's shit... but it does happen. Big business patent warfare is rarely a defense of patent ownership, but merely shots fired at an opponents bank balance!
If I had a button to abolish all of that copyright, patents and bullshit, I would push it. It's overhead added to the evolution of technology and the development of the human species.
One time specialist technical knowledge could only be used by guilds and under royal warrant (church censure) and strictly controlled and so shrouded in mystique and locked away that development and progress was very slow. The advent of copyright unlocked and allowed the exchange of technical knowledge as well a ideas about society because it permitted those who expressed their ideas to benefit from publishing them outside a closed system. Exchange of ideas through publication and refinement allow society to progress from a state where the average life expectancy was 27 years to the point where Ctrl+C seems to be an absolute right. Long story short, Without IP protection, Kuba, you would be lucky to be apprenticed to the Tallow Chandlers Guild.
Patents actually help accelerate innovation. If anyone can copy what you have innovated, then what incentive do you have to innovate in the first place? If a company spent billions to create a new drug that cures any cancer with 1 weeks worth of pills twice a day (hypothetically), that company should be able to recoup it's cost of development, or they never would have created that drug in the first place. We would be better off as a society to have this drug, even though one company owns it for a period of time. A company can horde all of it's innovations, and never patent them to prevent others from ever figuring out how to make it giving them a competitive edge for as long as they can keep it secret. This also does not help innovate anything. The issue we find ourselves in now are patent trolls who threaten to, or actually do sue for infringing on patents as a source of income. Most companies will just pay a settlement because it cost them less to do that then to fight it. I guess what I am saying here is... You are wrong.
@Herman der German and Ludix147, in the context of capitalism and competition it does make sense, assuming that competition happen between the big guys that have loads of money and pay for the patents. But I'm talking in the context of a theoretical big picture of what the human species and our true purpose is. I am not going to say that I'm a communist, a Marxist or anything like that. I just see that the way things work is antagonic to the intrinsic human nature of sharing, colaborating, helping each other, etc... Capitalism is good as long as everybody is willing to accept the terms that to lend a hand there must always be another hand with the cash... Doesn't ring a bell that the consumer/desktop 3D printer revolution and the reprap movement started just after the patent expired? eh? Seriously, how many things are owned by corporations that own patents? And, why should we believe in a system that in order to work needs a freaking nonstop production of things that are reinvented over and over, people like hamsters moving the wheel, requiring infinite growth in a finite planet. But well, perhaps this discussion is going into philosophy and you have the right answer. I'm just saying that I'm not satisfied with the way the world works, even if discussions like these are just for personal entertainment.
The general idea of patents certainly isn't bad - I can understand and relate to wanting to have at least some rights to what someone/you created. If only then the persons would also USE what they have. As already mentioned, the sudden uprising of cheap, well-working DIY printers was only possible thanks to the patent EXPIRING. Before that, the company just kept it locked away for as long as they could, without really doing much with it. In my opinion it is such actions that cause major problems - as well as some funky stuff going on in the pharma industry where even human genome samples get patented.
Where does the Thanos bust lie in regards to these rules or characters in general? If someone 3d models a character from scratch, say Thanos, or captain america, prints it and sells it is that legal? Arn't there like a bajillion artists at places like comicon that sell their own takes on Batman etc? Drawings, prints, sculpture, action figures etc?
So, this means anyone can go to thingiverse and download a functional part - for example a Bowden extruder - 3D print it and sell it because copy right does not cover 'functional' parts and the uploader does not have a patent?
You got "Open Source" wrong, well kinda. While this term is loosely applied to almost all community projects it is not a free ticked to run wild with it. The author (be it a real or legal person) can attach any licenses and conditions to it he likes, like only to be used with "our" hardware or only for documentary purposes. (Which most people obey of course -_- blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing )
If I print an item, I can do with that item as I please. Legally. I can't sell the STL or use the pictures from the Creator, but legally I can print and sell the STL. It's scummy and I wouldn't, but it is 100% legal in the US.
Assuming you mean someone else's STL, if its a spoon (a functional item) go for it, you can sell that print (but not the STL), but if its a vampire riding a dragon sculpted in z brush, probably not, both print that you made and STL are protected by copyright. Unless there is a CC license attached.
I appreciate what your doing here, although I feel like the topic your covering is common sense in most regards. I hope your next video is on something a bit more exciting, like a more indepth explanation/documentation on using trinamic 2130 with 2560 based 3d printers :)
A great example to see the extent some people go to avoid infringing copyright is this: www.thingiverse.com/thing:362162 That guy has gone to great extent to avoid infringing on copyright.
Don't forget scanned items: If you scan a real world model that someone has created you have copied it, so you can't go and sell that scan, the 3D model or the printed item, or even remix it without permission.
Nice summary of the system. Just some some of my observations and thoughts in response to the content; _Trade Secrets_ was not covered (eg. the Coca Cola recipe) but I do not know if this class of protection is that well used outside of North America so perhaps it was not used enough to be mentioned.I think that it has fallen out of favour myself. I would also mention that Patents protect the owner against replication for the purpose of profit. A patent is actually a public document and anyone can read it, understand it and use it to design and build a copy however the copy is for educational purposes and cannot be sold (I don't think it can be given to someone else either). Historically, the argument for patents was to "encourage innovation" and that would be hard to do if one could not build a copy from the patent in order to try and improve on it to the point at which it goes beyond the scope of the patent. As to copying a mechanical design, well historically I believe that's why Patents were created. So if the design is not patented (or the patent expired) then it can be copied and sold. As you said, the SLA technology patent ran out and so became open domain so there really is not any way for, say Prusa, too protect his printer design and so it is cloned ad nauseum. - Eddy
Patents suck... Even if you create something good you have to pay a huge amount of $ building your defense every time someone questions your patent rights... Big companies will bankrupt you in no time if they really need what you made.
Tesla will not sue others for their patents? Have you actually read those patents, they patented things that already existed or are outdated anyway, that's why they don't care about other people using it, because Tesla will lose that court anyway. Their patents serve the purpose of marketing and making them seem technically advanced. No but really, they patented silent relays: yes, just a simple relay but without the clicking sound; which is something that was already on the market before they patented it. Or another one was an extruded aluminium tube: no, not a special profile, a round tube, which is shaped like an 8 on one end and as a 0 on the other end. I mean good luck suing someone for that; they just claim their patents are free for the sake of marketing it as "it's for you, the people". In order to prevent someone else from suing you, it's no use patenting it yourself, you just have to show the judge you had that technology first.
sasja de vries. Dude, learn a little more about Tesla. You make it seem that they have two dumb patents. They actually have a ton of patents. Unless you are not able to understand more complex patents, not sure why you mention tubes.
A caveat about fair use: it's a valid legal defense to use in court, but it's only really applicable in court, it doesn't keep you out of a court.
Copyright is moot because it was designed to protect the big corporations. Maker John Doe can't afford to depend on copyright, and it is most cost-effective to generally pretend it a) isn't there for you and b) if it's there, it is against you.
If you want to make a living out of 3D printing just set up a Patreon or something. There's many people making a living out of "free work" that gets donated to in exchange for a perk or two. Either that or accept that someone, somewhere, is going to leech off but suing isn't even worth it.
My wife is in a similar boat - she draws for a living and sometimes people put her drawings (unauthorized) on e.g. shirts for sale. Suing would be a lot of work and is not a rewarding endeavor, not to mention it is downtime from actual work and a total drag.
Amazing. Adding this to my favorites playlist to reference it later in case something comes up.
A much needed video for the community - it would be cool if you could go through issues like printing or requesting copyrighted works through places like 3D Hubs, which seems to cause a lot of arguments in online forums.
I hadn't realized just how little copyright you had on functional designs - very interesting.
Great summary! Thanks for taking the time to share it.
Great video Tom. It surprises me there isn't more suites drawn in this area, and perhaps it's because it's not a large enough problem, but I have a feeling we are setting the stage for a crack down.
Tom, this question I have been meaning to ask you for a long time but all of those spools of plastic behind you in the videos don't they soak up moisture? What is the RH near them?
I have only been following your channel a few weeks but so far I like your work and the information you share.
Great job.
One interesting detail about patents being public is that makers or even companies can use the patented designs when creating their own machines. The in-house built machines can even be used to create commercial products (e.g. 3D prints) as long as the machines them selves are not made commercially available.
Now, that Thingiverse search of yours? HA!
Nice video! One thing I found interesting (Assuming I understand it correctly) is that anything published under a creative commons license is either free for everyone to reproduce commercially such as CC BY/BY SA, or restricted so nobody (including the author) can reproduce commercially.
That was an extremely educational video. The Heated Build Chamber is one that I have been researching quite a bit, as well as Arcam's Electron Beam Melting to try to reverse engineer it...as an educational project, of course.
You are very well spoken, your research is thorough. When people ask me what I do as an Engineering Student, they must have an image of a "geek" in a lab coat somewhere, when they find out the majority of the time is spent reading or researching it is always a surprise.
Tom, you seem like the type of student that wanted more out of school and prefer to self-educate yourself. Am I wrong? What area of engineering did you study?
I want to work with you or for you. You enjoy what you do, as a direct result, I believe the value of your videos (on the topics you've covered so far) is unparalleled.
How should someone get in touch with you to send you products to test?
Ryan of MPCNC fame should watch this video. He would learn that except for his trademarks and logos, his design has absolutely no protection, and anyone who wants to can legally sell parts for it, design new parts for it, or change his design.
Here's the catch-22 about Trademarks: Brands want their brand name to be widely-known. However, if a brand name becomes so widely-known that the public comes to identify an entire class of products by that name, it has become "diluted," and loses trademark status. "Aspirin" used to be Bayer's trademarked brand name for their specific product. Now, it is a generic term for any brand of acetylsalicylic acid pain reliever. This is why companies such as Xerox and Lego have PR campaigns to remind the public that those words refer to specific brands, not generic classes of products. See also: TVTropes article "Stuck on Band-Aid Brand."
For those who want to abolish patents and stuff: The big idea behind patents are, that they open the idea to everyone to improve the topic to an advanced state while the original patent holder is able to earn money and build up or run his company. If you are a private person you can always use the patents idea, but not as a competitor. The other option always was and still is to keep your knowledge secret. The world will be limited in its developing and educational speed then. Another topic is "Geschmacksmuster" to prevent anyone other as Porsche (as example) to build automobiles which look like porsche cars.
Patent law failure is that two people could come up with the same idea simultaneously and only the one who can (or wants to) "protect" it with a patent ends up with the rights to use it. I always think back to the lunchables patent on crustless PB&J. Not an innovative idea by a long shot... lots of people cut their crust and crimping the edges... that too. Yet they got a patent on the idea.
Overly long medical patents kill people because of monopolistic pricing.
I wish creative people and inventors could just be paid to create and invent and share, and not worry about becoming wealthy.
Well done Tom. You did a great job sorting through all the mumbo jumbo!
So basically I can print whatever i want so long as I dont:
Claim its mine
Sell it commercially without permission
Post about it online without permission
Or re-distribute the file without permission
Becuse obviosly people put them on 3d print sites SO YOU CAN print them, so as long as it's nothing more, your fine.
Makerbot is a fine one for this... Taking Taking Taking ok we have milked the community for what its worth time to lock up shop...
Really informative! Thanks for the video, really clears up a lot of the fog around copyright, patents, trademarks, etc. I look forward to your next videos!
One thing you didn't talk about was 3D scanning. If you scan an object like the Coca Cola bottle, whose shape is trademarked, and then distribute the file or prints made from the file, you are infringing on Coca Cola's trademark.
This is a great video. As a content creator/artist I really don't like seeing derivatives of my work. I have seen Things that have had one tiny little modification and then published as original work. After seeing a lot of that I decided to explore much of what you have mentioned in your video. I think If you plan on modifying someone else's work its appropriate to contact the original creator and give him/her the content to augment his work, otherwise keep it for yourself and don't publish it.
Tom! Excellent as always. Question unrelated to the topic. What is the color and manufacturer of that light green spool behind you in this video (just under your elbow)? My wife loves that color so I want to get a spool to print things for her.
I am building a 3D printer and thinking of selling it, glad I remembered this video to help orientate myself. I am still uncertain if or how I should go open source with my 3D designs and assembly files.
Great video Tom!
Excellent.
This is great even for people outside of 3D printing. I know in school I had to do at least 2 assignments that had to explain much of this.
Excellent video! The Blender 3D store is an interesting creative commons example because it's all creative commons stuff they sell digitally so you don't technically have to buy anything from there and can instead download the files for free from them instead (although it's cool to support them)
I’ve given away Creative Commons for photographs. It was for a wildlife sanctuary, and as they are a not for profit I wanted them to be able to generate revenue using my work.
Great explaining, what about characters and objects taken from movies or so, I've seen many printing and selling such items?
Best video yet! Very informative for the non legal
So what about the share button on any content on the Internet? When I share your webpage as post on Facebook "I profit" from "Your content"...
great video. Congrats Tom.
I have a question about CC. I have some CC content in Thingiverse/MMF and i don't want people earn money selling my designs (the STL files) but i have no issue with people who sells printed figures with my designs (anyone with a 3dhub by example). ¿It's the CC - Non Comercial the license i should use?
And another tricky question: if i have a generative algorithm, the STL's generated are protected with the same license that the algorithm?
Thanks
Thanks, this week i was revising my CC licenses and your video and comments solves many doubts.
Just come in the better moment for me. Good timing ;)
I really like your videos because they are very great quality and informative, keep it up!!
Great Video! See you in march at 3DMeetUp Sweden :D
This is a really important subject! Thank you for talking about it, after all much of the things that are printed are downloaded and copied from the internet. And that's a bad thing in the eye some "important people".
And i just read that you are coming ti Sweden Thomas! Looking forward to talking to you!
Hey Thomas, if you can check your last video! (The version of this one that you uploaded earlier)
I left you some questions I was hoping you may be able to clear up in a future video "What truly is Open Source" Or something along those lines.
Let me know if you can't view the previous comments as I'll post it again!
Thomas Sanladerer looking back, it was more of a conversation between me and another community member, I'm trying to see if there's a way to share a link to that conversation as Google doesn't let me copy paste!
Super Erklärung und Zusammenfassung der Zusammenhänge!!!
Danke.
Most Excellent dude! Wait did I just violate Ted and Bill's copyright?
I have a toy design that I created and had 3d modeled, printed it as a prototype. It is a toy with no function, and is only aesthetic. If I were to have these mass produced and sold, would it be a copyright or a patent? It is an original work of art, but would making copies to sell as a toy make it need a patent?
Hey I have a really important question. Now I wanted to 3d print to sell items. items such as day to day items like, certain kitchen tools, cell phone cases, drones, certain toys, and accessories like go pro holders. we won't display any trademark names of any product. since I know I can not simply take a persons 3d print file and start commercially selling it. Now, what if I had someone else look at the designers work. be able to build on it and improve it and possibly change some of the layout of the design of the product, colors and some materials will also be different also. would that still be infringing any copyright?
Do we have rights to sell the 3d printed part which has creative commons license
Hey Thomas, what is your opinion on the E3D Kraken?
Hey Tom I have the prusa i3 mk2 and I was wondering why layers where the plastic bind together to look smooth like the first layer and last layer...some lines peel or curl up and making that top or bottom layer rough. Is there a way I can fix this? Thanks. If you can do a video about this that would be great.
So I have made a conveyor belt system to automatically remove prints for one of my printers. Because this is patented by Makerbot am I not allowed to share my CAD files even though they are all my own original work and design?
If I download someone else's file as a starting reference, how much do I need to alter it before it's mine. I.e. a file for a helmet that I added horns and an opening face shield to?
Great explainations! And awesome sweater - seriously!
Left shark was removed from Shapeways.com/shop/amznfx but not from thingiverse.. also it was returned to Shapeways after Katy perry didn't prove she owned copyright
I have a question then, what about the Chevy emblems and Ford emblems on thingiverse, those are trademarked and licensed for use only by the respective company but you see them all the time on items that aren't licensed. Another big one is the guy who created the 3d printed LS Camaro engine and put it on thingiverse. He used copyrighted and patented drawings to create it and is reselling the 3d prints, legally he'd be infringing on TM, Copyright and Patents.
Probably has to do with how those things are presented. If an object presents the company logo in a tasteful way, and doesn't compete with an existing product it's more likely they'll let it slide. Also people aren't likely to buy a Ford or Chevy keychain doodad, unless they have a Ford or Chevy. So in a way it's also like free advertising for that promotes another already existing product.
Not that they can't go after it, but it's just not worth the bother or counter-productive in terms of PR.
That's the point of artificial scarcity. -- It's not *real* scarcity. -- You can just ignore it and go about your day. -- Everything will be fine. :)
The companies care trust me, I've seen cease and desist letters from lawyers. They don't know about it and until they do it will continue. It's like the saying, "I'm not breaking the law if I don't get caught".
There is a bottom-line question in any copyright, licensing or patent issue:
If you copy something for your own jollies, life is good, you owe nobody anything.
Private use clause is well established; you can have all the advanced technology 'they' are keeping from everyone, you just can't share it with anyone!
If y'all make a copy for someone else, sell a copy, claim it as your own work, fail to credit Author for derivative works, then there are legal issues.
The only people who argue passionately for the abolition of private property are poor folks crying for a hand-out.
"You have some, I got none! Crime!" is not the grown-up way of living in this world.
Would it be possible to patent open source? So the thing you invent cannot be copied again but will remain open source?
Great topic Thomas. Thanks for the effort.
Interested to hear how your opinion has changed on the clone printers, perhaps when you do the Anet A8 video. I've got one in the mail and I've heard you have one coming too.
I have one, it's great.
So if somebody ask me for print something from Thingiverse, can I (as a company) print that and sell the print as a "Printing Order" regardless for 'What I'm printed out'?
Even if you weren't allowed to do that, the creator of whatever it is off Thingiverse would never find out, so it wouldn't matter.
What is CC-Attribution? Is it free to use, modify and Sell? Please clear my doubt?
Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0
[ERROR] Error:Line Number is not Last Line Number+1, Last Line: 0
Can you helpme please?
I know this is not the place, but i couldn't find it anywhere else.
CC-ND make sense when you what to open source for transparency reasons.
I am making a 3D model of an art scene that i want to sell on line... Do i or should i copyright this image model.. If so, what would i need to do in order to copyright the model image... is it neccessary ?
The exact requirements are very different between countries, so if you see copyright infringement being a potential significant loss for you, I'd recommend talking to an actual lawyer.
Heres a question: What If you download a model that isn't copywritten and use it commercially, but the model was a reupload of another model that was. If the original maker goes to take legal action, who would they go after?
They would go after everyone involved and get as much money as they can, and if you are making money off of it - you might have to pay the most, because you happen to have the most.
Every model has some sort of copyright because it was created by someone.
Why does Reprap project start right after the patent on 3D printers expired?
Stasys can sue anyone that make the machine for their own use as well? Or it because we can't publish the info about DIY 3D printers?
Or maybe just because thing like filament are hard to get hand on before the patent is gone?
Stratsys would not sue you if you made a copy of one of their printers, because the legal reward is based on lost revenue. If you are never going to sell a million of them or be the cause of someone else taking your work and selling a million of them, there's no lost revenue.
If I buy a STL file of a movie character, is the file creator breaking any laws by creating that file? Do they have the right to limit how I use the file?
I have guestion, if I ask to do so, can I give a non comercial print away to like a 50th customer. Mainly to market my printing? Asking because I am willing to ask the creator and know that It would increase what I can sell.
I'll sum it up for you in one sentence instead of a 15 minute video:
'If you don't sell or distribute anything, you can do whatever the fuck you want."
There's so much more information in the video that such an explanation is trite at best.
Also, it's false for many jurisdictions, as many people find when they get sued for just downloading movies and music, without redistributing it or money changing hands. Are you likely to be sued for 3D printing model files? Probably not, but assuming you can do whatever you want might run people into trouble.
reposting a copyrighted image is the same as distributing it. But really it is more about if you never share the thing you made. You are not harming the owner/company. Which is the point of copy rights. If you redistribute a image/movie online/offline you are taking income from the creators. If you redistribute an image from a news channel you are taking away views from the owners which loses ad income... If you keep what you made/modified to yourself you are not in anyway effecting the owner of the content. If you sell something you are obviously taking money away from the creator. Even if you are taking a work from someone who is giving it away for free when you redistribute the work you are claiming it as your own(putting the original author name is required not just stating it is not your work).
@Thomas
Do you know what distribute means?
Remember what the software, and music, industry says about that copy you "bought"? They say, so do their attorneys who come after you, that you are only leasing the right to use it for a one time payment but they retain all right beyond you installing one time or playing it on your machine. They have won on cases about this and while that makes me sick even if I thought I could win you, nor I, would have the money to fight them so you obey Goliath. So, you take your copy of your CD, DVD, or whatever and go install it on a friend's PC to play or listen to (in case of a music CD) on a device you do not own you are not distributing it but you are in violation nonetheless. Digital files are the exact same.
You purchase and own the physical media (tape/CD/DVD/Blu-Ray/pages/canvas/etc.) on which the work resides, as well as a license to personal use of the work contained therein. "Installing" music, video, or software from the physical media you purchased is making a new copy, hence, distribution, if even on a very small scale.
If you think you are developing something that is worth a patent application keep a development diary with time and date with details. In the event of disputes it proves the development process. BUT if some large company wants what you have, money wins every time. That's the way of the world.
That sweater is freaking sweet. where and what brand lol
hello i have a bit of autisum and dont understand everything, can someone help me on this? So lets say someone makes a dsign for feeding snails, i take this disigne off a website, download it and change it. then sell it on my website. is that ok? if i dont ever admit i copyed? i mean, who knows i copyed it?
copyright, trademarks, and patents, are only enforceable if you have the money to do so. For example you make an item, put it on thingiverse and have it copyrighted. Someone else prints and sells it you get mad. But do you have the money to go after the person? Because if you don't good luck. If its something you want to stay yours DO NOT SHARE IT. Because there are many people in this world capable of taking advantage of the system and get away with it.
Great information tho. Love your work. Keep it up :D
Patents also do not have this magical 10% rule either. A design/function that is patented give protection and forcible claim on those that infringe it. A contest of a patent in defense requires the patent owner to prove that their patent does not infringe even after it is awarded. Patent searches are made at the time of applying for a patent and many months pass during this phase.
At the review, you will be presented many potential conflicts with other patents where word or function searches show similarities. At this time you have to write a statement and show cause why your invention or process is different and this is where people think the 10% rule applies.... IT DOES NOT. The Patent office is responsible for ensuring that reasonable effort is made to the uniqueness of a design. This is often measured against the intent of use of the product. Where similar processes can be applied to be used for different functions. For example... you can't patent ohm's law or resistors or LEDs (unless you've made a new type of LED) or generic processes.
This means that for the most part of your patent application, it will be rejected, and only the unique parts are captured in the approved patent. So what happens with your patent? Thousands of people with patents for LED lighting applications, and the only bit they can enforce, is how they use it or what it means in it's use.
Patents can be used offensively, but represent SIGNIFICANT cost! A defendant with a patent must also have to pay to prove they are unique too, at cost!
Sometimes a Patent offensive strike is not to stop someone using their own patent. But a financial tactical attack to bleed the small scale operator dry of cash before they can implement and make money from their own patented invention.
It's shit... but it does happen.
Big business patent warfare is rarely a defense of patent ownership, but merely shots fired at an opponents bank balance!
What about charging for printing services not directly trying to sell an item off of Thingsverse
Well, even if that were not allowed (though it probably is) nobody would know what item you were printing, so it wouldn't matter.
If I had a button to abolish all of that copyright, patents and bullshit, I would push it. It's overhead added to the evolution of technology and the development of the human species.
Mankind taints all that it touches.
One time specialist technical knowledge could only be used by guilds and under royal warrant (church censure) and strictly controlled and so shrouded in mystique and locked away that development and progress was very slow. The advent of copyright unlocked and allowed the exchange of technical knowledge as well a ideas about society because it permitted those who expressed their ideas to benefit from publishing them outside a closed system. Exchange of ideas through publication and refinement allow society to progress from a state where the average life expectancy was 27 years to the point where Ctrl+C seems to be an absolute right. Long story short, Without IP protection, Kuba, you would be lucky to be apprenticed to the Tallow Chandlers Guild.
Patents actually help accelerate innovation. If anyone can copy what you have innovated, then what incentive do you have to innovate in the first place? If a company spent billions to create a new drug that cures any cancer with 1 weeks worth of pills twice a day (hypothetically), that company should be able to recoup it's cost of development, or they never would have created that drug in the first place. We would be better off as a society to have this drug, even though one company owns it for a period of time.
A company can horde all of it's innovations, and never patent them to prevent others from ever figuring out how to make it giving them a competitive edge for as long as they can keep it secret. This also does not help innovate anything.
The issue we find ourselves in now are patent trolls who threaten to, or actually do sue for infringing on patents as a source of income. Most companies will just pay a settlement because it cost them less to do that then to fight it.
I guess what I am saying here is... You are wrong.
@Herman der German and Ludix147, in the context of capitalism and competition it does make sense, assuming that competition happen between the big guys that have loads of money and pay for the patents. But I'm talking in the context of a theoretical big picture of what the human species and our true purpose is. I am not going to say that I'm a communist, a Marxist or anything like that. I just see that the way things work is antagonic to the intrinsic human nature of sharing, colaborating, helping each other, etc... Capitalism is good as long as everybody is willing to accept the terms that to lend a hand there must always be another hand with the cash... Doesn't ring a bell that the consumer/desktop 3D printer revolution and the reprap movement started just after the patent expired? eh? Seriously, how many things are owned by corporations that own patents? And, why should we believe in a system that in order to work needs a freaking nonstop production of things that are reinvented over and over, people like hamsters moving the wheel, requiring infinite growth in a finite planet. But well, perhaps this discussion is going into philosophy and you have the right answer. I'm just saying that I'm not satisfied with the way the world works, even if discussions like these are just for personal entertainment.
The general idea of patents certainly isn't bad - I can understand and relate to wanting to have at least some rights to what someone/you created. If only then the persons would also USE what they have.
As already mentioned, the sudden uprising of cheap, well-working DIY printers was only possible thanks to the patent EXPIRING. Before that, the company just kept it locked away for as long as they could, without really doing much with it.
In my opinion it is such actions that cause major problems - as well as some funky stuff going on in the pharma industry where even human genome samples get patented.
Ist dein Anet A8 angekommen ? Meiner noch nicht
Where does the Thanos bust lie in regards to these rules or characters in general? If someone 3d models a character from scratch, say Thanos, or captain america, prints it and sells it is that legal? Arn't there like a bajillion artists at places like comicon that sell their own takes on Batman etc? Drawings, prints, sculpture, action figures etc?
Fan art is fine as long as you don't sell it.
Nice one Tom!!
Can i use my own thing commercially even if the license i want for it is NC?
***** thanks :)
Fantastic video, thanks Thomas
So, this means anyone can go to thingiverse and download a functional part - for example a Bowden extruder - 3D print it and sell it because copy right does not cover 'functional' parts and the uploader does not have a patent?
Can't seem to get a clear answer anywhere regarding this.
Thats true.
Where does he get all his sweaters tho
Thanks for another great video tom :)
Really interesting video content thanks.
Thank's for another great video!
You got "Open Source" wrong, well kinda. While this term is loosely applied to almost all community projects it is not a free ticked to run wild with it. The author (be it a real or legal person) can attach any licenses and conditions to it he likes, like only to be used with "our" hardware or only for documentary purposes.
(Which most people obey of course -_- blog.wolfire.com/2011/02/Counterfeit-Lugaru-on-Apple-s-App-Store-developing )
Very helpful. Thanks.
If I print an item, I can do with that item as I please. Legally. I can't sell the STL or use the pictures from the Creator, but legally I can print and sell the STL. It's scummy and I wouldn't, but it is 100% legal in the US.
Assuming you mean someone else's STL, if its a spoon (a functional item) go for it, you can sell that print (but not the STL), but if its a vampire riding a dragon sculpted in z brush, probably not, both print that you made and STL are protected by copyright. Unless there is a CC license attached.
Thanks tom
It's odd that any of this exists since the human brain is not capable of creating content. We can only combine previous sensory input.
My brain is spinning
Tnx ! 4 vid ...
I appreciate what your doing here, although I feel like the topic your covering is common sense in most regards. I hope your next video is on something a bit more exciting, like a more indepth explanation/documentation on using trinamic 2130 with 2560 based 3d printers :)
Great video. :-)
A great example to see the extent some people go to avoid infringing copyright is this:
www.thingiverse.com/thing:362162
That guy has gone to great extent to avoid infringing on copyright.
That's all great ideas, but I'll stick to do things my way: god way.
Don't forget scanned items: If you scan a real world model that someone has created you have copied it, so you can't go and sell that scan, the 3D model or the printed item, or even remix it without permission.
Nice summary of the system.
Just some some of my observations and thoughts in response to the content;
_Trade Secrets_ was not covered (eg. the Coca Cola recipe) but I do not know if this class of protection is that well used outside of North America so perhaps it was not used enough to be mentioned.I think that it has fallen out of favour myself.
I would also mention that Patents protect the owner against replication for the purpose of profit. A patent is actually a public document and anyone can read it, understand it and use it to design and build a copy however the copy is for educational purposes and cannot be sold (I don't think it can be given to someone else either). Historically, the argument for patents was to "encourage innovation" and that would be hard to do if one could not build a copy from the patent in order to try and improve on it to the point at which it goes beyond the scope of the patent.
As to copying a mechanical design, well historically I believe that's why Patents were created. So if the design is not patented (or the patent expired) then it can be copied and sold. As you said, the SLA technology patent ran out and so became open domain so there really is not any way for, say Prusa, too protect his printer design and so it is cloned ad nauseum.
- Eddy
Edit, Missed Jonni Nakari san's comment which said basically the same thing as me re: construction a patented design... my bad..
Looks up iron man mask on Etsy...
YAYAYA
Patents suck... Even if you create something good you have to pay a huge amount of $ building your defense every time someone questions your patent rights... Big companies will bankrupt you in no time if they really need what you made.
Und jetzt nochmal in Deutsch , ich versteh nur Bahnhof. 😂
Outside of the R&D element, patents are onerous and constrain creativity and progress in society. Net not good.
Tesla will not sue others for their patents? Have you actually read those patents, they patented things that already existed or are outdated anyway, that's why they don't care about other people using it, because Tesla will lose that court anyway.
Their patents serve the purpose of marketing and making them seem technically advanced.
No but really, they patented silent relays: yes, just a simple relay but without the clicking sound; which is something that was already on the market before they patented it.
Or another one was an extruded aluminium tube: no, not a special profile, a round tube, which is shaped like an 8 on one end and as a 0 on the other end.
I mean good luck suing someone for that; they just claim their patents are free for the sake of marketing it as "it's for you, the people".
In order to prevent someone else from suing you, it's no use patenting it yourself, you just have to show the judge you had that technology first.
sasja de vries. Dude, learn a little more about Tesla. You make it seem that they have two dumb patents. They actually have a ton of patents. Unless you are not able to understand more complex patents, not sure why you mention tubes.
IP is a scam